But critics argue that the question isn’t whether the Smithsonian has celebrated America’s 250th birthday at all.
The real question, they say, is what kind of American story the institution is choosing to tell.
And that question has placed Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunch III directly in the political crossfire.
A $4.4 Million Question
According to a Fox News Digital review of Smithsonian tax filings, Bunch received more than $4.4 million in salary and benefits between 2020 and 2024.
His 2024 compensation alone included $915,469 in salary and another $74,090 in benefits. His compensation is paid through private trust revenues, an arrangement that allows Smithsonian executives to receive compensation outside the federal government’s standard pay limitations.
That arrangement has drawn renewed scrutiny because the Smithsonian relies heavily on federal appropriations.
The institution is not simply a private nonprofit operating on donations. A substantial share of its funding comes from American taxpayers, with reporting placing federal support at roughly 60% or more of its overall budget.
That creates an obvious question for taxpayers:
If public money helps keep the institution running, should the public expect the institution to remain politically neutral?
The Trump administration has answered that question emphatically.
Bunch’s Own Words Come Back
Much of the controversy surrounding Bunch does not depend on anonymous accusations or speculation.
His own public statements have become central to the debate.
In a policy framework co-authored for the American Alliance of Museums, Bunch described DEAI — diversity, equity, accessibility and inclusion — as essential to museum practice.
“DEAI is integral to excellence in museum practice. FULL STOP.”
He went further, arguing:
“Amid social, political and cultural polarization and clear structural racism and other forms of oppression in the United States and around the world, DEAI must be at the center of how we understand and practice excellence in our institutions.”
Supporters see those statements as evidence of an institution attempting to confront difficult chapters of American history.
Critics see something very different: an ideological framework being elevated above traditional historical scholarship.
That disagreement has become one of the central battles surrounding the Smithsonian.
The 1619 Project Controversy
Bunch’s comments about the 1619 Project have also returned to the spotlight.
In a 2019 Smithsonian Magazine interview, Bunch described the Smithsonian as more than a convener of public discussion.
“We call ourselves the Great Convener, but really we’re a Great Legitimizer. And I want the Smithsonian to legitimize important issues, whether it’s 1619 or climate change.”
He continued:
“We help people think about what’s important, what they should debate, what they should embrace.”
Then came the line that has become particularly significant amid today’s political fight:
“Everybody that thought about the 1619 Project, whether they liked it or disagreed with it, saw that the Smithsonian had fingerprints on it. And that to me was a great victory.”
For Bunch, the Smithsonian’s involvement demonstrated the institution’s ability to elevate subjects into the national conversation.
For his critics, it demonstrated something else entirely.
They argue that a federally supported museum should preserve and explain history rather than deliberately use its institutional authority to validate politically charged interpretations.
Trump Administration Drops the Hammer
The dispute exploded into a much larger confrontation on July 4, when the White House Domestic Policy Council released a 162-page report titled “Saving America’s Story: How Ideological Capture at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of American History Erases Our Heritage.”
The report accused the National Museum of American History of moving away from traditional historical education and toward what the administration characterized as political activism.
It declared that the Smithsonian’s approach had become an ideological framework that treated American history as a political instrument rather than a shared national inheritance.
The report ultimately argued that the institution “cannot be trusted to tell America’s story honestly.”
That is an extraordinary accusation against one of the country’s most recognizable cultural institutions.
The Trump administration has since moved beyond criticism and toward direct pressure for changes in how the Smithsonian presents American history. Trump also ordered warning signs to be placed near the National Museum of American History pointing visitors toward the administration’s report and its claims about inaccurate historical information.
Bunch Pushes Back
Bunch has rejected the White House’s characterization of the museum.
In a message to Smithsonian employees, he said:
“While there will always be room for improvement, this report is not a fair characterization of the work and totality of the National Museum of American History.”
He defended the institution’s commitment to scholarship and said its mission was to present the full breadth of America’s history.
The Smithsonian’s position is clear: examining slavery, racism, inequality and other painful chapters of American history does not amount to hostility toward the country.
But conservatives counter that acknowledging America’s failures and celebrating its achievements are not mutually exclusive.
They argue that Americans deserve both — an honest account of the nation’s darkest moments and an equally honest recognition of the freedoms, institutions and accomplishments that made the United States exceptional.
The Bigger Fight
That may ultimately be the most important issue in the Smithsonian controversy.
America’s museums are not ordinary political organizations. They possess enormous cultural authority. When a museum tells visitors what matters in American history, it influences how millions of people — particularly young Americans — understand their country.
The Smithsonian’s own 2026 anniversary exhibition demonstrates the institution’s ability to present a sweeping account of the nation’s past. It features artifacts ranging from the Revolutionary era through modern America and explicitly explores the ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The dispute, therefore, isn’t simply about one executive’s compensation or one controversial historical project.
It is about who gets to shape America’s national memory.
Bunch has said that “what the country needs are places that are nonpartisan and safe.”
That is an admirable goal.
But in an era when taxpayers are funding a large portion of the Smithsonian’s operations, and when the institution’s own leaders openly discuss legitimizing politically significant issues, Americans are entitled to ask whether the Smithsonian is actually living up to that standard.
The Trump administration clearly believes it is not.
And with the country’s 250th birthday now serving as the backdrop, Washington’s battle over the Smithsonian is no longer a quiet argument among museum professionals.
It has become a much larger fight over taxpayer dollars, institutional independence — and who gets to tell America’s story.
